Paper Topic: What, if any, is the relationship between morality and happiness?

you may develop and present your own view on the topic. You must present at least one possible objection to whichever view you initially present, and then you must respond to the objection on behalf of the initial view. At the very least, the response to the objection should be your original work.

Choose any two of the philosophers that we read in Unit 2 (John Locke or David Hume).  Recap each philosophers main view about consciousness/the self/personal identity. Explain at least one difference between the two philosophers views and state which view you prefer. Then, offer an argument (i.e., evidence) against the view that you reject.

If you need to re-familiarize yourself with the central issues on personal identity, I suggest that you review the following (20-minute) podcast: The Self and Personal Identity. Additional information regarding personal identity can also be found here: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/identity-personal/

Start with making a careful summary of two of the philosophers we read in Unit 2. What were their main concepts and definitions, what were their distinctions? How did they imagine that the self was different from the brain or different from the mind? Restate their theory and include "direct quotes", specific references from their

Dr Rieux argues that the only way to fight a plague is with decency. What does he mean by this? How does his conduct embody this kind of decency? Are there echoes of his view in Thucydides discussion of the plague? Is his position relevant for thinking about our own fight against Covid?
No more than 5 pages, use at least 8 quotes from Camus Plague and 3 from Thucydides.

    I would suggest that you write 2-3 paragraphs for your answer (though you can wrote more if youd like). The first paragraph should explain the material. The second paragraph should state your own opinion about it and give some good reason for your opinion.
    You will be graded on the basis of two considerations: First, did you understand, and could you clearly explain, in detail and in your own words, the material that was presented to you in the readings? You will lose points if you pretty much just re-state the notes. Second, did you express an opinion and give a reason for your opinion? Was your reason just a repetition of the ideas that I presented to you in the lecture or in the notes? Was it just an unsupported assertion? Or was it an original idea? You will lose points if I cannot find an original idea in your paper, or if you state an idea but do not give any reason for it.

Topic Question: What is Pascals wager? Give one objection

This will be a persuasive speech, please use the included link below to structure the speech (problem - solution / problem - cause - solution). You can choose which side you are better versed in, also site sources from peer reviewed journals and integrate quotes into the speech the outline should follow Monroes motivated sequence (this is easy) include some refutes to opposing side and address some concerns that come with your side of the argument. Thanks!

. Briefly present Ethical Relativism vs. Universalism, and discuss the attractive and problematic aspects of each. Are you an ethical relativist or a universalist? Is relativism a valid, legitimate ethical theory? Why or why not? Explain your own position and respond to possible objections. Bring up an example to illustrate/justify.

, I'd like you to write a reflection on only what we have covered up to this point in Descartes' Meditations explaining what you believe to be significant about Descartes' beginning with methodological doubt/skepticism, and this leading to the only thing that he can be completely certain about, which is of course that he exists since he is thinking.  Descartes' motto is "Cogito Ergo Sum" or, "I think, therefore I am."  Put another way, what is the significance of Descartes' shift to the focus upon the epistemological foundations of our knowledge, i.e. our mind and its possibility to obtain certainty, and how can this be tied in with the overall modern period's Enlightenment values, as characterized above?  Also, can this modern shift in Descartes thought be reconciled with his proofs for the existence of God?  Is Descartes attempting to provide a new conception and role of God in relation to nature/humanity, or is he just trying to appease the Medieval Scholastic tr

Criteria for Critique

To receive full credit, answer all workshop questions in complete sentences, offering specific suggestions for improvement whenever possible.

The Summary

1.  Does the summary clearly introduce the writer, article title and publication?

2.  How effectively does the summary convey the central issue / problem that the author addresses and explain how he or she feels about the issue?

3.  How successfully does the summary help the reader understand the key points of the author's argument?

4.  Are signal phrases ("Hong shows," "the author suggests," etc.) used to make an obvious distinction between information presented in the article and the writers ideas (see: https://department.monm.edu/english/mew/signal_phrases.htm (Links to an external site.))?

5.  Are descriptive verbs (Valdez indicates rather than Valdez is saying that) used to describe the actions of the text?

6.  Does the sum

Reading from Thomas Hobbes, extracts from Leviathan (posted on BB in pdf)

 

Why is Hobbes's work called "Leviathan"? Elaborate on Hobbes's view of human nature. Why would humans need a social contract, according to him?

Aristotle believes that we can have better and worse conceptions about what it means to be happy. Thus, it is possible that we might each be mistaken not only about a general account of happiness, but also about what actually makes us happy as individuals. Carefully explain why Aristotle believes this. Do you agree? Is it possible that you could be mistaken about what makes you happy?


Can you make it sound not so sketchy, my professor thought it looked sketchy last time.